4 ms·

Early Googler here. It's funny how often the story of the mass-firing is misreported. This article gets two basic facts wrong: 1) Larry was targeting enginee

by pk2200 12y ago

Early Googler here. It's funny how often the story of the mass-firing is misreported. This article gets two basic facts wrong: 1) Larry was targeting engineering management, not project management. 2) Nobody was fired. The engineering managers shifted to pure engineering roles (an easy move, since they all had technical backgrounds). On many teams, the managers continued managing, but they did it more discreetly, taking care to stay out of Larry's way. A year or so later, after the engineering staff had doubled in size, it became clear hat it wasn't practical for one VP (Wayne Rosing) to have 200 direct reports, and engineering management came back out of the shadows.

magicalist 12y ago
Humans need their narrative. It doesn't make for good storytelling if a situation is muddled and people's changes of heart are only by a small degree.
- nutjob2 12y ago
  Why not just call it what it is: sloppy journalism? Ignoring the facts to further a pre-determined narrative would more commonly be called a lie.
  - ust 12y ago
    Agreed. One more factual error is mentioning Tesla as a Croatian immigrant, but actually he was born in then Austrian Empire (which today is Croatia). His parents were Serbian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla
    - nl 12y ago
      Whether Tesla was Serbian or Croatian is one of the most controversial topics on Wikipedia[1]. As is typical for Wikipedia he has been added and removed from the list of famous Croats a number of time[2]. I don't think that can be classed as a factual error [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_controversial_issues#Science.2F_Biology.2F_Health http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_controversial... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Croats#Tesla http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Croats#Tesla
    - nicholascarlson 12y ago
      Thanks. This was a mistake. I've fixed it.
  - nostrademons 12y ago
    Ironically, this debate over whether it's "crafting a narrative" or "sloppy journalism" is itself an example of crafting a narrative. The same facts can be explained many ways, with many different emotional tenors.
    - nutjob2 12y ago
      Of course, nothing wrong with creating a narrative, and of course the same facts can be seen different ways. But the point is you use the FACTS. I've seen too much journalism, especially in tech, which has scant regard for the truth and focuses on pushing some line that the author thought would make a good story.
  - magicalist 12y ago
    Maybe I wasn't clear. Yes I was phrasing it deliberately to contrast with what anyone should consider good journalism :)
moonka 12y ago
They mention that they weren't fired. >In the end, the layoffs didn’t stick. The project managers Page had intended to fire that day were instead brought into Google’s growing operations organization, under the leadership of Urs Hözle.
fuzzythinker 12y ago
Actually, few paragraphs later, he did say they are not fired. "In the end, the layoffs didn’t stick. The project managers Page had intended to fire that day were instead brought into Google’s growing operations organization"
- guyzero 12y ago
  But they were never even laid off, that's the point. How can layoffs "not stick"? If people were fired they wouldn't still have been working there.
  - mapgrep 12y ago
    The VP of engineering told them all they were without jobs. By the end of the day, that was reversed. Right? "Rosing explained that engineering was getting a reorganization. All engineers would now report to him. All project managers were out of a job."
hglaser 12y ago
I was at Google during the Eric Schmidt years and thought the author captured it pretty well, including: * A basically coherent, well-run, thriving place to work; except: * Lots of executive infighting, especially certain execs; and: * Larry's eccentric, seemingly bored behavior during high-level reviews. Larry definitely seemed frustrated and out of touch with the rest of the management team. And Eric seemed to see it as his responsibility to try to manage that dynamic while keeping the ship pointed in a safe direction. Possibly there is a lot more source material about this phase of Google history for the author to draw from.
brown9-2 12y ago
The article does indeed seem to use "project managers" and "managers of engineers" as if the terms mean the same thing.
mapgrep 12y ago
#2 is actually in the story. Unless you're saying they got the particulars wrong? "The project managers Page had intended to fire that day were instead brought into Google’s growing operations organization, under the leadership of Urs Hözle."
- pk2200 12y ago
  I think even that part is mostly wrong. The author confuses project and engineering managers, but more importantly, this notion that Larry wanted to fire all of them is just not true. The managers all had technical backgrounds (CS degrees, usually) so the plan was for them to go back to writing code. I also don't remember a bunch of people moving to Urs' team. Maybe one or two? Most stayed with their teams.
johnx123-up 12y ago
Can any Googler explain the difference between engineering management and project management?
- nostrademons 12y ago
  There're actually more flavors of management role than just those two, and the terms get a bit confusing when you try to map them: 1.) Tech lead. This is the technical point of contact for the project as a whole. Responsible for deciding overall system architecture (usually by acting as the tiebreaker when there're debates within the team), determining priorities, either assigning work or creating systems where the team can identify what needs to be done and do it, interfacing with their PM, pitching in technically when needed, and ensuring the overall engineering success of the project. 2.) Engineering management, or more generally, people management. This is what's reflected in the official org chart. Responsible for career development of subordinates, keeping reports happy and ideally still employed at Google, dealing with personnel issues, HR issues when necessary, managing performance, coaching, giving feedback, getting their reports promoted, stepping in when the employee has done something inappropriate, etc. 3.) Product manager. Drives the product vision of the project forward. In theory (and hopefully often in practice) they represent the user and are responsible for building something users want. Daily duties include negotiating with other functional areas of the org (legal, PR, security, privacy, accessibility, etc.), doing market research, analyzing data, representing the team in meetings, keeping the product vision, coming up with new ideas, often building mockups (although this is often outsourced to UX), ordering T-shirts, getting approvals, and generally doing everything necessary to get the project to launch. 4.) Program managers. These are process-oriented managers that are often attached to infrastructure or devrel teams that have ongoing responsibilities that impact a number of consumers. Their job is basically organization and communication: they make sure everyone knows what they need to know and that all external requests are eventually handled with nothing important being dropped on the floor. #1 and #2 are both done by engineers, although #2 is sometimes done by dedicated engineering managers. #3 and #4 are specific job titles. Sometimes #1 and #2 are the same person, sometimes they are separate people; many people find things run more fairly and more efficiently if technical decisions are not made by people with direct authority over your career, although others prefer to have their manager be intimately familiar with their work because it helps come promotion time. #1 and #3 also map to startups, where a "tech lead" is basically the "hacker" while a "product manager" is basically the "hustler". #2 maps to the "adult supervision CEO", while #4 maps to "super talented admin who keeps the books, knows all the employees, and keeps the company running."

by pk2200 12y ago

magicalist 12y ago

Humans need their narrative. It doesn't make for good storytelling if a situation is muddled and people's changes of heart are only by a small degree.

nutjob2 12y ago
Why not just call it what it is: sloppy journalism? Ignoring the facts to further a pre-determined narrative would more commonly be called a lie.
- ust 12y ago
  Agreed. One more factual error is mentioning Tesla as a Croatian immigrant, but actually he was born in then Austrian Empire (which today is Croatia). His parents were Serbian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla
  - nl 12y ago
    Whether Tesla was Serbian or Croatian is one of the most controversial topics on Wikipedia[1]. As is typical for Wikipedia he has been added and removed from the list of famous Croats a number of time[2]. I don't think that can be classed as a factual error [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_controversial_issues#Science.2F_Biology.2F_Health http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_controversial... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Croats#Tesla http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Croats#Tesla
  - nicholascarlson 12y ago
    Thanks. This was a mistake. I've fixed it.
- nostrademons 12y ago
  Ironically, this debate over whether it's "crafting a narrative" or "sloppy journalism" is itself an example of crafting a narrative. The same facts can be explained many ways, with many different emotional tenors.
  - nutjob2 12y ago
    Of course, nothing wrong with creating a narrative, and of course the same facts can be seen different ways. But the point is you use the FACTS. I've seen too much journalism, especially in tech, which has scant regard for the truth and focuses on pushing some line that the author thought would make a good story.
- magicalist 12y ago
  Maybe I wasn't clear. Yes I was phrasing it deliberately to contrast with what anyone should consider good journalism :)

moonka 12y ago

They mention that they weren't fired. >In the end, the layoffs didn’t stick. The project managers Page had intended to fire that day were instead brought into Google’s growing operations organization, under the leadership of Urs Hözle.

fuzzythinker 12y ago

Actually, few paragraphs later, he did say they are not fired. "In the end, the layoffs didn’t stick. The project managers Page had intended to fire that day were instead brought into Google’s growing operations organization"

guyzero 12y ago
But they were never even laid off, that's the point. How can layoffs "not stick"? If people were fired they wouldn't still have been working there.
- mapgrep 12y ago
  The VP of engineering told them all they were without jobs. By the end of the day, that was reversed. Right? "Rosing explained that engineering was getting a reorganization. All engineers would now report to him. All project managers were out of a job."

hglaser 12y ago

I was at Google during the Eric Schmidt years and thought the author captured it pretty well, including: * A basically coherent, well-run, thriving place to work; except: * Lots of executive infighting, especially certain execs; and: * Larry's eccentric, seemingly bored behavior during high-level reviews. Larry definitely seemed frustrated and out of touch with the rest of the management team. And Eric seemed to see it as his responsibility to try to manage that dynamic while keeping the ship pointed in a safe direction. Possibly there is a lot more source material about this phase of Google history for the author to draw from.

brown9-2 12y ago

The article does indeed seem to use "project managers" and "managers of engineers" as if the terms mean the same thing.

mapgrep 12y ago

#2 is actually in the story. Unless you're saying they got the particulars wrong? "The project managers Page had intended to fire that day were instead brought into Google’s growing operations organization, under the leadership of Urs Hözle."

pk2200 12y ago
I think even that part is mostly wrong. The author confuses project and engineering managers, but more importantly, this notion that Larry wanted to fire all of them is just not true. The managers all had technical backgrounds (CS degrees, usually) so the plan was for them to go back to writing code. I also don't remember a bunch of people moving to Urs' team. Maybe one or two? Most stayed with their teams.

johnx123-up 12y ago

Can any Googler explain the difference between engineering management and project management?

nostrademons 12y ago
There're actually more flavors of management role than just those two, and the terms get a bit confusing when you try to map them: 1.) Tech lead. This is the technical point of contact for the project as a whole. Responsible for deciding overall system architecture (usually by acting as the tiebreaker when there're debates within the team), determining priorities, either assigning work or creating systems where the team can identify what needs to be done and do it, interfacing with their PM, pitching in technically when needed, and ensuring the overall engineering success of the project. 2.) Engineering management, or more generally, people management. This is what's reflected in the official org chart. Responsible for career development of subordinates, keeping reports happy and ideally still employed at Google, dealing with personnel issues, HR issues when necessary, managing performance, coaching, giving feedback, getting their reports promoted, stepping in when the employee has done something inappropriate, etc. 3.) Product manager. Drives the product vision of the project forward. In theory (and hopefully often in practice) they represent the user and are responsible for building something users want. Daily duties include negotiating with other functional areas of the org (legal, PR, security, privacy, accessibility, etc.), doing market research, analyzing data, representing the team in meetings, keeping the product vision, coming up with new ideas, often building mockups (although this is often outsourced to UX), ordering T-shirts, getting approvals, and generally doing everything necessary to get the project to launch. 4.) Program managers. These are process-oriented managers that are often attached to infrastructure or devrel teams that have ongoing responsibilities that impact a number of consumers. Their job is basically organization and communication: they make sure everyone knows what they need to know and that all external requests are eventually handled with nothing important being dropped on the floor. #1 and #2 are both done by engineers, although #2 is sometimes done by dedicated engineering managers. #3 and #4 are specific job titles. Sometimes #1 and #2 are the same person, sometimes they are separate people; many people find things run more fairly and more efficiently if technical decisions are not made by people with direct authority over your career, although others prefer to have their manager be intimately familiar with their work because it helps come promotion time. #1 and #3 also map to startups, where a "tech lead" is basically the "hacker" while a "product manager" is basically the "hustler". #2 maps to the "adult supervision CEO", while #4 maps to "super talented admin who keeps the books, knows all the employees, and keeps the company running."